30 Comments

Wow! Abe-san has quite an agenda at the G8 summit. First, he has to explain why Abenomics is not gambling with the Japanese economy and then, he has to explain why Japan has the right to peddle nuclear power after all the scandals involving sub-standard safety procedures that caused the world's second worst nuclear disaster. Good luck with that mate! "Shut up! Shut up! Stop laughing!"

One thing - people use the term POST-communist countries rather than EX-communist (ex is used usually for describing people with whom we had relationship, like ex-wife, ex-friend; not historical periods). It's also a term which isn't used so often nowadays, since the economical transformation happened during the 1990s, and know Poland, Slovakia, Czech and Hungary are all in European Union structures.

Countries from central Europe are very interested in nuclear power because if we won't build enough power plants soon, there will be an increase in the electricity cost and eventually power shortages. It's not a problem now, but it is going to be in the next 20-30 years.

Last but not least - for the last 50 years this particular part of Europe was blocked from the west by the symbolic iron curtain and played a role of protectorate for the Soviet Russia. Because of no contact between soviet countries and western Europe many negative stereotypes about Slavs were strengthened, but I hope that people will be able to overcome this negative image, which was created in XIXth century when the regional societies were mostly dominated by peasantry.

What a guy. First he wants he stomps on sex slaves when he finally has to admit they existed and the Imperial troops used them, then he tries to push the failing Abenomics on the world, and now he's trying to peddle nuclear exports when all we have in Japan is scandal after scandal after scandal. Is he going to go to demand that other nations provide maps with fault lines they can build upon, and that people who have no idea what they're doing be hired to run the plants?

The only reason other countries would want to get the nuclear knowledge is build nuclear weapons. If Japan begins a relation with the Arabic countries on nuclear power they are helping them to acquire nuclear weapons. Countries buying nuclear technology from Japan have nothing to do with nuclear power. Once they have nuclear power they have a nuclear bomb. It only takes 6 months to refine the nuclear material to be able to make a bomb.

Well played by Abe right now. People in Europe are probably astonished how well Japanese nuclear power plants took the giant earthquake and tsunami and how safe it could be in countries without such a risky factor. There's EU going all around with the CO2 emission limits and it seems like the only way for countries in Central Europe could secure electricity sources and get EU satisfied.

evil evil guy, Japan should have been promoting renewable energy a decade ago and established themselves as the leaders in the clean energy industry. Japan could have easily been world leaders and one that all other countries would look to for insight, but no, they choose a technology that is 50 years old that not only cannot be safely used, but with no means to get rid of the waste. What is wrong with these guys, do they have no conscience...? sorry, stupid question.....money talks....

Never in my worst nightmares would I have come up with the J. P.M. stepping out onto the world stage to hock nuclear energy. Like that worked so well for us here. Why aren't people simply slapping their foreheads and asking him to please take a cold shower and offer something else?

And, Piortr, if your central European countries are facing future power shortages, time to retrofit, retool, and invest sustainable green energy. Surely you have heard of the mess at Fukushima when something (as it will) goes wrong?

Are you aware that the Fukashima disaster was caused by a massive earthquake and tsunami that is a once in every thousand year or so event? Such a thing could never happen in Europe, which is not in an earthquake zone and has never had a similar catastrophe. Seems to me all the negative and derogatory comments about Abe, Japan and nuclear power on this forum are more about personal hatreds, prejudice and racism rather than any alleged safety concerns. Fortunately the authorities in Poland and other ex-communist countries seem to be a little wiser and less prejudicial than some of the hate-filled commentators on this forum.

A Realist.
but how sure can you be that a natural disaster won't happen? Did the future tell you? Sure the past tells you, but hey there were earthquakes in Europe! I know, I AM European! There are also small shakes sometimes and our particular tectonic plate seems to be pressured with the African one and causing always more and more friction...in the Mediterranean sea there are also underwater volcanoes that could become a nuisance.

I know prices of electricity are rising, but nuclear ain't the solution..it is an increasingly unstable world right? Why add more to the unbalances?

There are also small shakes sometimes and our particular tectonic plate seems to be pressured with the African one and causing always more and more friction...in the Mediterranean sea there are also underwater volcanoes that could become a nuisance.

Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia or Hungary aren't anywhere near Mediterranean area when I looked at a map last time. I haven't heard about risk or giant earthquake in Central Europe in my lifetime (past in history and present).

And, Piortr, if your central European countries are facing future power shortages, time to retrofit, retool, and invest sustainable green energy. Surely you have heard of the mess at Fukushima when something (as it will) goes wrong?

What 'green energy' you're refering to? Solar ennergy? There's not enough sun throught the year there (you maybe heard how winter looked this year in Hungary?). Wind? There's not enough wind to propell the entire countries. A village, maybe yes, but not cities. What kind of 'green energy' you're refering to?

Most of Japan's nuclear problems were caused by a 10,000 year event. That's how big that tsunami was. There is a 300 year event to consider-the Cascadia subduction fault off the coast of N. California, Oregon, Washington, and BC. Japanese monastery records pin pointed the date (16 Jan 1700) of the last one and US geological records revealed a three hundred year period between events. Therefore, the time to build sea walls is now.

As to risks in central Europe; their biggest problem is bone chilling cold that Napoleon and Hitler learned the hard way. The Russians call it "General Winter". The logical solution to their problem is nuclear power and the current best sources of it would be France and Japan. By the way, we could use some more here in the USA, too.

Such a thing could never happen in Europe, which is not in an earthquake zone and has never had a similar catastrophe.

Poland had a mag. 3 earthquake yesterday. Slovenia had a mag 4.

Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia or Hungary aren't anywhere near Mediterranean area when I looked at a map last time. I haven't heard about risk or giant earthquake in Central Europe in my lifetime (past in history and present).

A Realist. but how sure can you be that a natural disaster won't happen?

Of course nobody knows that a natural disaster won't happen; no one can predict what may or may not happen in the future. How do you know that a huge meteor won't crash into Earth or that you won't be hit by a car next time you go for a drive or a walk. In Japan there are earthquakes every day, much bigger ones than the ones that more infrequently happen in Europe of magnitude of 3 or 4 or smaller, which usually cause little or no damage unless they occur in a very populated area. In fact nuclear plants are designed to be earthquake proof, and there would have been no catastrophe in Fukashima had it been simply an earthquake, even one of a very large magnitude had it not been accompanied by a massive tsunami, which is a once in a thousand year event even in Japan, the most earthquake prone country in the world. I would think that now the Japanese have learned to not build nuclear power plants in an area that would be subject to a tsunami, which would be simply to build them further inland.

It is really a shame that people are so uneducated about nuclear power and that it has become the new bogeyman for the fearmongers and chicken littles of the world. Nuclear power is one of the safest options for power generation, and the least polluting of them all and a better option than coal-fired generating plants So-called "green technology" is simply not practical or cost-effective, and hydro electric power is not an option in many places. There are over 400 nuclear power plants operating in the world today, and there have only ever been a few major accidents involving them. Fukashima, because of once-in-centuries major disaster, Chernobyl because of poor design, shoddy construction and poor maintenance, and Three Mile Island because of negligence.

In fact nuclear plants are designed to be earthquake proof, and there would have been no catastrophe in Fukashima had it been simply an earthquake, even one of a very large magnitude had it not been accompanied by a massive tsunami, which is a once in a thousand year event

The earthquake badly damaged the power plant even before the tsunami struck. The site lost all off site power because the pylons collapsed. It also lost off site water supply needed to cool the reactors. The cooling pipes inside the No1 reactor building were damaged. The containment vessels and compression chambers were damaged. Even without the extensive damage by the tsunami which killed the emergency generators, No1 reactor might have still gone into meltdown. A radiation alarm sounded 1 km from the plant, 15 minutes after the earthquake and before the tsunami struck.

even in Japan, the most earthquake prone country in the world

Indonesia is the country prone to the most earthquakes including powerful one like in 2004 which measured 9.1 to 9.3 on the Richter scale compared with the Tohoku earthquake which was 9.0.

massive tsunami, which is a once in a thousand year event

Tsunami can be caused by volcanos too, like the one in 1792, Mount Unzen. There have been many tsunami caused by earthquakes. 2011, Tohoku. 1946, Nankaido. 1944, Tonankai. 1933, Showa Sanriku. 1923, Kanto. 1896, Meiji Sanriku. 1855, Edo. 1854, Nankai. And so on and so on........

Build nuclear power plants further inland would need water for cooling or a different kind of reactor?

Italy also suffers from powerful earthquakes and following the 3/11 nuclear disaster decided to cancel their plans to build any nuclear power plants.

What 'green energy' you're refering to? Solar ennergy? There's not enough sun throught the year there (you maybe heard how winter looked this year in Hungary?). Wind? There's not enough wind to propell the entire countries. A village, maybe yes, but not cities. What kind of 'green energy' you're refering to?
>

How about using some renewal energy? Not 100%, but at least help with the electricity load, and therefore in a way help not to increase the cost of electricity that much no?

A Realist; and what makes you think that other nuclear plants won't breakdown for the same reasons? I prefer being a "chicken little", thank you. I don't want to be responsible for the future generation's demise. You say it is safe, but if a meltdown happens, how safe is that? The problem that I see, is that people just focus more on the nuclear (which does produce waste too.) and not on how to make viable renewable energy. If a meltdown happens and it leeches in it won't be the country that has nuclear the only one to suffer either.

I have solar panels on my roof. I come from a place where sun, wind and (sea) water is a no problem, but space is a big problem..so gov encourages people to invest in solar for themselves, or one could sell that power generated to the government. We can never make 100% usage of our renewable sources, but we try at least :)

Turkey is building three new nuclear plants, at least one and maybe two, will be built by a Japanese company. One of the sites is near to the major fault line which has the highest number of earthquakes in the country???

What 'green energy' you're refering to? Solar ennergy? There's not enough sun throught the year there (you maybe heard how winter looked this year in Hungary?). Wind? There's not enough wind to propell the entire countries. A village, maybe yes, but not cities. What kind of 'green energy' you're refering to? >

How about using some renewal energy? Not 100%, but at least help with the electricity load, and therefore in a way help not to increase the cost of electricity that much no?

A Realist; and what makes you think that other nuclear plants won't breakdown for the same reasons? I prefer being a "chicken little", thank you. I don't want to be responsible for the future generation's demise. You say it is safe, but if a meltdown happens, how safe is that? The problem that I see, is that people just focus more on the nuclear (which does produce waste too.) and not on how to make viable renewable energy. If a meltdown happens and it leeches in it won't be the country that has nuclear the only one to suffer either.

I have solar panels on my roof. I come from a place where sun, wind and (sea) water is a no problem, but space is a big problem..so gov encourages people to invest in solar for themselves, or one could sell that power generated to the government. We can never make 100% usage of our renewable sources, but we try at least :)"

How nice that you live in a place where sun, wind and water is no problem. Lots of people, most in fact, do not. That is why solar power is not an option in many places. Ditto for wind and water. As for wind turbines, they have their own problems, as has been discovered. Too bad birds and bats can't talk or they might have some objections about wind turbines, but then the millions of birds of birds and bats killed every year by those things wouldn't be able to talk anyway. Funny how all the "environmentalists" supposedly so concerned about the environment always neglect to mention any of the drawbacks of supposed "clean energy," although of course cost is the main drawback even if you don't care about birds or bats. Besides the costs being prohibitive and not cost effective even for countries with extremely high tax rates, most people cannot afford to put solar panels on their roofs, especially when they can't even afford a roof over their heads.

Nuclear power is an option in many places. Perhaps there are better options, unfortunately nobody has yet discovered them or figured out a way to make them economically viable. Certainly everything should be done to make nuclear power plants safer, and I presume that it is being done. There are over 400 nuclear power plants in operation worldwide and more being built all the time; some of them have been operating for many, many years without and most of them have never had any problems.

It should be noted that in the Fukashima disaster approximately 18,000 people lost their lives, most because of the tsunami, not because of any nuclear accident. Yet most of the news coverage does not even mention that, nor do they mention that the Fukashima earthquake and tsunami was the largest ever recorded in Japan since records were kept. I am not sure if you recall the Kobe earthquake of 1995, that was a very large quake. There are several nuclear power plants in that area; none suffered any significant damage. The media does however, give vast coverage to anything negative concerned with nuclear energy. In the old days it was called "yellow journalism," or "fear-mongering," or "scare-mongering;" nowadays they just call it journalism. I call it anti-nuclear propaganda 101. However, I admit it does work extremely well, it scares the pants off many people who really don't want facts, they want to be frightened just like when they go see a horror movie.

It is nice to think about "future generations," but we have no way of knowing what effect, if any, our actions might have on future generations. In the last decade the bogeyman has been "global warming" or "man-made climate change," in the 1970's it was the coming ice age, in the middle ages it was witchcraft. Seems there always has to be some kind of bogeyman that always creates often irrational fears, nuclear power is the current bad guy for many people as evidenced by comments on forums like these, of which the features are knee-jerk reactions to almost everything and a distinct lack of logic and rational thought, tempered by dislike, prejudices and racism. If Abe was against nuclear power, many of the commentators here adamantly against it now would do an about turn and be in favor of it.

. I am not sure if you recall the Kobe earthquake of 1995, that was a very large quake. There are several nuclear power plants in that area; none suffered any significant damage

You need to fact check before you make some of your comments. I live in Kobe, and I can assure you there are no nuclear power plants in this area, and none which were affected by the 1995 earthquake because the nearest atomic power plants would be across over in Fukui prefecture where there are several plants. If there were a nuclear disaster there, like the one in Fukushima, it would contaminate the largest water supply, Lake Biwa, Osaka City of 7 million and would reach Kobe city, 1.5 million.

You didn't read through, we don't have space! I live on an island which is smaller than Tokyo..our only resources are natural resources (of which sea water.), and us the people. The government here makes incentives for people to invest in solar; i.e. government offers a subside which can cover quite some of the cost.

There's no reason to me to take side with or against Abe, I'm talking about nuclear not Abe. Furthermore, well sorry sir if my reasoning is illogical and yours isn't. This forum is your choice as much as it is mine, and I have been reading this newspaper for at least 3years but never dared to comment before a month ago or so. I am just stating my opinion, which is in no way racist as much as I know. I love Japan, a lot. I wished I lived in Japan..but I don't agree with everything, fair enough?

Sure, you live on a tiny island where the sun probably shines most of the year and the government subsidizes your solar energy. Most people do not live on a small island and their government does not subsidize anything. Even if they did, most people would still not be able to afford such a thing, besides in most of the world there is not enough sunshine to make solar power the least bit practical. Such things are fine where they could be viable, but those places or few and far between. Unfortunately there are no "green energy" solutions at this time that even come close to proving to be practical. Green energy is an impractical solution to big problems that is promoted by dreamers who deny reality. Maybe nuclear energy has proven to be a practical way to produce energy, dismissing it because of what "might" happen makes no sense at all when it has been proven mostly safe over a long period of time. With that kind of reasoning, why not ban cars? More people are killed worldwide by cars in a week than were ever killed by all nuclear power plant accidents.

-> http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/tepco-finds-highly-toxic-strontium-in-fukushima-plant-groundwater . I'm not gonna say anything else, we're both stubborn, but I don't want to have kids in a world which is being destroyed by the most intelligent beings living on it. That's all.